Leica SL or Hasselblad X1D

[LocalHero1953]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

When the X1S was announced the thaught of getting Leica SL disappeared, but then comes Fujifilm GFX 50S. So this camera is my next purchase to be used mainly for landscape and nature. I am keeping the M 240 for the time being, but not for long to be replaced by Fujifilm XT-2. I might keep couple of M lenses to be used on XT-2 the rest gone go, so it is almost goodbye Leica for me.

That's a quick decision based on two non-existent cameras!

[tom0511]

I know this has been said before, but I will say it again:

 

The more I think about it the more I have the opinion that the question should be X1D vs Leica S,

and then it depends if one wants a little more resolution, 3:4 image ration, EVF, a little smaller size, Hasselblad

or 2:3 image ratio, SLR/OVF, Leica S lenses, choice between CCD or CMOS.

 

The main attraction I see for the x1d is the somewhat smaller size compared to other MF cameras/systems.

 

The SL is faster and more flexible than the other 2 by far (except flash synch time) but its not medium format and I think one can see the difference, not only in resolution.

[Peter H]

I know this has been said before, but I will say it again:

 

The more I think about it the more I have the opinion that the question should be X1D vs Leica S,

and then it depends if one wants a little more resolution, 3:4 image ration, EVF, a little smaller size, Hasselblad

or 2:3 image ratio, SLR/OVF, Leica S lenses, choice between CCD or CMOS.

 

The main attraction I see for the x1d is the somewhat smaller size compared to other MF cameras/systems.

 

The SL is faster and more flexible than the other 2 by far (except flash synch time) but its not medium format and I think one can see the difference, not only in resolution.

 

 

 

Yes, this makes good sense.

 

I see the SL as a partner/alternative to an M, and the X1D should be compared more with the S.

 

But....it's a new, attractive camera in a similar-ish price range to the SL, with many superficially similar features, and when deciding how to spend the next dollop of cash, what is attractive will count for at least as much as what the specific features are. So it's inevitable that quite a few Leica users will try to decide whether an SL or an X1D (or a Fuji) would be the  nicer thing to buy.

[alib]

I was primed and moving towards the SL as a replacement for my M, mainly because of the autofocus. But with the XD1 I am now pointed towards keeping the M and looking to handle/test the XD1, which will give me autofocus and a larger sensor at a similar price point to the SL.

[Guest VVJ]

Pretty amazing how most potential buyers don't even seem to get the name right, it is the X1D, not the XD1 nor the X1S...

 

As already mentioned on the first page of this thread, this camera should be compared with the Leica S, not with the Leica SL...  

 

And with regards to the Leica S it is clear that Leica needs more than a kick in the butt...

[Jeff S]

 

 

As already mentioned on the first page of this thread, this camera should be compared with the Leica S, not with the Leica SL...  

 

 

 

It should be compared with any camera one chooses, depending on personal goals, priorities and preferences.  

 

As a complement to my M system, I've considered the X1D along with the S006 (ruled out), S007 (if lens issue gets solved and price comes down), the SL (still in the running), the GFX, the Pentax 645Z (ruled out) and Canon 5DSR (likely ruled out).  Each has been, or will be, tested in my own print workflow.

 

I can cite pros/cons for each system, including factors like lens line, VF, focusing, menu interface, ergonomics (including size/weight), weather sealing, file format and IQ, price, and more.....including factors not evident until put into use.  

 

If I were only interested in EVF, for instance (I'm not), several of these cameras, including the S, would be out of the running.

 

Jeff

Edited October 12, 2016 by Jeff S

[Guest VVJ]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It should be compared with any camera one chooses, depending on personal goals, priorities and preferences.  

 

As a complement to my M system, I've considered the X1D along with the S006 (ruled out), S007 (if lens issue gets solved and price comes down), the SL (still in the running), the GFX, the Pentax 645Z (ruled out) and Canon 5DSR (likely ruled out).  Each has been, or will be, tested in my own print workflow.

 

I can cite pros/cons for each system, including factors like lens line, VF, focusing, menu interface, ergonomics (including size/weight), weather sealing, file format and IQ, price, and more.....including factors not evident until put into use.  

 

If I were only interested in EVF, for instance (I'm not), several of these cameras, including the S, would be out of the running.

 

Jeff

 

 

Jeff,

 

No disagreement here.  Buy the camera that you like best and that you can afford.

 

What I do find awkward though is people looking at the price range first, then at the specs and only then at their requirements...

 

I would turn that around, that's all.

 

Joris.

[Jeff S]

Jeff,

 

No disagreement here.  Buy the camera that you like best and that you can afford.

 

What I do find awkward though is people looking at the price range first, then at the specs and only then at their requirements...

 

I would turn that around, that's all.

 

Joris.

 

Well, if someone has budget as a top priority (limitation), that could understandably influence the comparison set, regardless of other requirements.

 

For me, value is probably a better descriptor than price, but again, that's a subjective thing.

 

I try not to judge others or their choices.....but I do think the best approach is to actually try and compare....take pics and make prints... not simply follow reviews or forum recommendations.

 

Each to his/her own.

 

Jeff

Edited October 12, 2016 by Jeff S

[Peter H]

Well, you can compare it with a holiday in the Andes if you wish.

 

Which might not be such a bad idea...

[Jeff S]

Well, you can compare it with a holiday in the Andes if you wish.

 

Which might not be such a bad idea...

 

But then someone will start a thread asking which camera/lens is best to take to the Andes.

 

Jeff

[DezFoto]

Having handled both cameras, I think the SL vs X1D is a valid comparison. They are similar in size, weight and not that far off in cost. The lenses so far are also similar in size,  weight and price. 

 

The SL has the edge with: Focus and operational speed, faster lenses, more focal range coverage with the currently available lenses, ability to adapt non-native lenses and a better EVF.

The X1D has the edge with: Pure file/print size, ability to adapt HC lenses if you already have them, has that larger-than-35mm look, better dynamic range and bit depth, 1/2000 flash sync. 

 

Overall the SL is a much more versatile camera, nearer a replacement for a high-end DSLR than something like an A7 series camera. The X1D is a portable near-MF that can be used in the studio with strobes, or on hikes into the bush for serious landscape work. So versatile, but a different kind of versatile, depending on your needs. 

 

The S cameras are also a valid comparison, but it's a bigger, heavier body and the lenses are also larger and more expensive, has a smaller sensor (not that it's enough of a difference to matter to most people) but it's weather sealed and you can adapt non-native lenses to it. Focus speed felt about the same as the X1D to me. 

[steppenw0lf]

If you compare in a very shallow way, then the lenses of both systems are "similar" - they are all "big".

If you dig slightly deeper they have nothing in common: For the SL they are big zooms with a big focus range and quite fast lenses for being zooms.

For the X1D they are primes (the "smallest"- only 35 and 70mm equivalent) that are on the slow end.

The AF speed of the lenses is completely different, and the OIS capability.

 

If you want to compare: The primes for the SL (M or R, 35 and 75) are typically much faster. But they are not native, so maybe you do not want to compare. The announced native SL primes are also completely different. (But not there, so again no comparison).

 

So where is the commonality ?  

A tester would feel ashamed to compare them - they are simply too different for a fair comparison.

 

And about equal prices: A house and a Ferrari (collectors model) have about the same price. Does that make them easily comparable?

Edited October 12, 2016 by steppenw0lf

[Peter H]

....................

 

And about equal prices: A house and a Ferrari (collectors model) have about the same price. Does that make them easily comparable?

 

 

As with most things, it depends how clear you are about what you want before you begin your comparisons.

[alib]

 

 

And about equal prices: A house and a Ferrari (collectors model) have about the same price. Does that make them easily comparable?

 

 

Pretty amazing how most potential buyers don't even seem to get the name right, it is the X1D, not the XD1 nor the X1S...

 

As already mentioned on the first page of this thread, this camera should be compared with the Leica S, not with the Leica SL...  

 

And with regards to the Leica S it is clear that Leica needs more than a kick in the butt...

 

Is it allowed to compare it to a chocolate tee pot?.... oops, I spelt that wrong too :-)

[Jeff S]

 

The S cameras are also a valid comparison, but it's a bigger, heavier body and the lenses are also larger and more expensive, has a smaller sensor (not that it's enough of a difference to matter to most people) but it's weather sealed and you can adapt non-native lenses to it. Focus speed felt about the same as the X1D to me. 

 

The X1D system is claimed to be weather sealed, but we don't yet have practical reviewer or customer reports as we do with the S to attest to its effectiveness.  I won't be surprised if LensRentals conducts one of their popular 'tear-downs' on the X1D (and lens) to  assess its build quality.

 

The same can be said about the Fuji GFX....claims for weather sealing...but I'm awaiting confirmation as to whether it will be stocked by LensRentals.

 

For me, one of the biggest distinctions between the S and X1D that you don't mention is that gorgeous optical viewfinder versus a (seemingly average) EVF.

 

Jeff

[IkarusJohn]

I don't have a problem with the SL - X1D50c comparison.

 

On paper, similar price, similar size, both weathersealed, both EVF. But, different lens offerings and different sensors - with the X1D having almost twice the sensor real estate.

 

What the comparison comes down to is what people are looking for - if there is a benefit in the larger sensor (and boy what a benefit!) then the X1D is very appealing with its compact size. But then, the SL appears to be more complete as a system.

 

If I didn't already have an SL, the two zooms and a nice collection of M glass, I would be looking very long and hard at the X1D. My interest is less the quality of the EVF (provided it is adequate and doesn't have a long blackout after exposure - M(240) & T) and more image quality - the X1D should have that in spades.

[DezFoto]

 

For me, one of the biggest distinctions between the S and X1D that you don't mention is that gorgeous optical viewfinder versus a (seemingly average) EVF.

 

Jeff

 

That's a good point, the S has the best viewfinder I've ever used, much better even than the one on my Hasselblad. I did however, find the EVF on the X1D perfectly acceptable as far as EVF's go, though the one on the SL is far superior. In isolation, I don't think anyone would complain about the X1D's viewfinder. 

[Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS]

Im sticking with a CVF-50c.....................its got all the bells and whistles and fits into my vocabulary 

[DezFoto]

 

So where is the commonality ?  

A tester would feel ashamed to compare them - they are simply too different for a fair comparison.

 

By your logic the only camera that is acceptable to compare to the SL is the A7, which to my mind, is not really that comparable either. 

 

In the real world you compare cameras that you're considering purchasing, not necessarily cameras that are parallels to each other. This isn't a "which camera is better" discussion, it's a "which camera is better for me" discussion. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[EoinC]

...And about equal prices: A house and a Ferrari (collectors model) have about the same price. Does that make them easily comparable?

If most of your work is studio, a house is better set up for lighting options than a Ferrari.

For travel work and street, the Ferrari is a better option.

Both claim to have weather sealing, but it should be noted that for the convertible models in top-down mode, the Ferrari has limitations. Older versions of the house have been noted to have problems with this, too.

etc, etc...